this week. for m.k. hammer and kmele foster, i'm matt welch. good night. . neil: stick a syringe in it. the health care law is dead. it's flat lining very fast. welcome, everybody, i'm neil cavuto. never thought i would say this about a government program, apparently they can be killed. here is the trick. only if you let them kill themselves. that is what is happening to obamacare, assisting in its own suicide. confusion over subsidies that might not be legal, enrollies that might not be real and care that may not be affordable. this thing is hanging on a tourniquet. it's not only losing enrollees but the whole mess is headed to
the supreme court where even liberal justices are losing patience. the third time will not be the charm for this monstrosity. amended so often, that it bears little resemblance to the titanic that left the potomac four years ago. that was then, this unmitigated disaster now. democrats are running away from it. unpleasant surprises over it, and talk now of $2500 penalties for individuals who don't sign up, only getting them more riled up. exchange sites not working, many applicants outright lying, doctors revolting, businesses rebelling. people carrying torches, sorry, not carrying torches. mark my word, obamacare dies under the weight of its own lies. if it sounds too good to be true, you don't need the doctor you can't keep to tell you that it probably is.
it definitely is. forget the paddles, stat, stat, that's that. my thought, i'd love to hear yours unless you disagree with it. hashtag cavuto, share them with the world, and we'll be happy to share them with everyone. fox business's kate rogers all over this. we have our fox biz all-stars, ashley pratt, and jim, welcome to all. kate, what's going on? this thing is imploding? >> a huge week for obamacare. on tuesday, the u.s. court of appeals in washington, d.c. ruled a case, it was originally sebelius, they say the irs acted without congressional approval in expanding the subsidies program into states using health care daca, the federal exchange. the people who receive them, nearly five million people will not be able to keep them. neil: technically, means they're not really enrollees.
but another court disagrees and a different view. >> yes, the fourth circuit court comes out with their ruling in a similar case saying the subsidies are going to be upheld. josh earnest says the subsidies will keep on flowing and they're not going anywhere any time soon. the gist is this will hit the supreme court this year, if the subsidy system goes away, the slaw in big, big trouble. neil: bottom line it's penalties and everything, jim, every day it's a new crisis, and like whack-a-mole, you try to keep up with them. this law has significantly changed from what was launched and i don't think any government program goes away. this one just might. >> we talked about how poorly written it was. you look at each part they've had to change or delay or modify and you wonder what parts were well written? hardly any of it was. we talked about this before, neil, the penalty. and how it was cheaper to not get insurance until you got
sick and then you had free insurance anyway. neil: up to $2500. >> how popular is this going to be? how popular overall. it's toxic. how are they going to defend it? it will implode under its own weight, it should, it has to. it's making a mess out of economy and small businesses and jobs, they're going to have to redo the whole thing. in november, we have a big change in washington. maybe they'll do a big makeover, scrap the whole thing and come out with something, write something well, something that will make sense. neil: what do you think, ashley? >> neil, this is a law we had to pass before we see what was in it. famous words of nancy pelosi. we're seeing the effects of that. and i don't think any of us are shocked that obamacare is facing another legal battle, and i think that's so crucial to remember is we did not see what was in it before it was passed. and now all of the ramifications, we're seeing
delays in coverage for people who have enrolled and seeing that people might not be granted subsidies through the federal exchange because of a word tack. neil: those subsidies were key to keeping people -- >> costs flow and affordable health care. neil: and the fact of the matter is, if it turns out the structure of the subsidies aren't copacetic, those people are not going to be able to afford this. and sure enough -- >> absolutely crucial. people don't have insurance before obamacare because it would be 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 a year. people need subsidies. the people who sign up early for it. that said, legally yes, it's not going to work, a frankenstein plan. states are commandeered by the federal government. all i know is the taxes are legal, and if you think that you're going to tax the
citizenry of the state but no benefit's going to come from the federal government. that's the situation that can't last very long. neil: that's where i think, kate, the supreme court is going to get a third crack at. this i don't know the process, and that's the one that won't be the charm for this. they're going to argue against the subsidy thing, and effectively have to say by definition the taxes that pay for this have to go as well. therein lies the finances. >> based on who is going to sign up. if people don't sign up, they lose money, the government is on the hook through 2016. come 2017, the insurance industry is on its own. that's a big deal. neil: how would that affect insurances? the stocks would tumble, right? >> if you look at what the insurance companies have done all throughout obamacare, things were passed. insurance companies went higher. things got delayed. insurance companies went higher. the insurance companies are actively involved with anything
that gets gone. neil: thieving bastards before, they are mean thieving bastards now. >> people have to pay for insurance xerox uncertainty, the stocks may trade sideways for a while. the stocks are going to be doing very, very well at the end of the day. >> the benefits will be seem that way, any of the drawbacks and problems we're encountering and poor people in particular who for now they heard the subsidies decision but assume they still have coverage, will rally around it. and democrats who campaign on that, talking about way past 2014, it will stabilize. what do you think about that? >> you're right to guess that's what's going on happen. this was peddled as a program that will help through subsidies and ensure people who couldn't find affordable coverage. but if this, as kate was mentioning, if it goes to the supreme court and is struck down and subsidies aren't
available in the federal exchanges, only state ones, we'll see people scrambling to get coverage and it won't exist anymore. neil: wouldn't they throw it back at congress to fix or say to hell with it? >> where would the money come from. >> and for congress to fix, neil? did you what are he said. >> drama on the individual mandate from the supreme court. this is the bigger deal. subsidies matter more. neil: jonas. >> people thought they were going to get the benefit after going through the crazy website, that is taken away because the state doesn't want to put up a website. if you don't think they're going to swarm the capitol. neil: what about the surtaxes, extra taxes like jim here, he's going to swarm the capitol. >> and the tanning tax. >> if you go to the u.s. territories you don't have to comply with the individual mandate or the employer mandate. i read a story about that. maybe it will be obamacare
inversion-type thing. >> six states aren't even participating in this to begin with. so you're going to have to have something where the states get involved, otherwise you have a federal mess like now. neil: it's a disaster, but did i tell you it would be a disaster. remember this? >> hillary is going to be one heck of a force to be reckoned with. neil: she will not be the nominee, noelle, you refuse to listen to me. and i will burn the tapes if that turns out to be the case. she will not be the democratic nominee. neil: i won't be burning any tapes, now i'm looking clairvoyant. but it is looking like i'm right. i'll explain.
that's way, way early. our fox biz all-stars are back as well. larry, what's going on here? >> well, neil, she's not going to be the nominee if she doesn't run. that would be the best bet. neil: you don't think she runs? wait a minute, you don't think she runs? >> if she decides she's not going to run, you will be right. i'm trying to find a way to make you right. neil: really? you, you you condescending story. every time they push hillary clinton, i'm an admirer, not when it comes to looking for president. she can't handle a book tour without embarrassing herself. all the latest stuff on the clinton foundation and bill clinton and everything is all coming up, and a lot of democrats say enough, enough, enough, enough! >> well, again, if these things -- and you're right all of these things have come up.
she's been through a lot. i suspect she has talked about rhinoceros skin. if the skin is pierced and she says hey, i'm going to be 69 in 2016. i want to have a calm retirement. neil: you're saying that's the only way she would opt out, the money backers, i talked to a few. >> 20% chance she'll lose, okay? if she's in the race. neil: you, you know as a great historian, you know when lyndon johnson won the new hampshire primary in 1968. the fact that mccarthy made such a battle out of it compelled him not to run. you need to be embarrassed. >> neil, the difference is that hillary clinton is not running a deeply unpopular foreign war. okay? that explains the difference between lyndon johnson in 1968. neil: all i'm saying it claims high expectations and r ran who people dismissed. sometimes if you have a 30,
40-point lead in the polls and win a primary by ten points people think you're wounded. perception is reality. you would think as a historian you, you would know this. >> it could be that. i'm going to take the high road, neil, and say if you're ride for any reason, i'm going to send you a big tub of ice cream. neil: and if i am wrong, i am not sending you such ice cream because i already lost a bet with you. >> that's the difference between us. >> i don't think she's a good candidate. what has she ever done? she was secretary of state, and what is she known for as secretary of state? benghazi. very insensitive comment in the congressional grilling about what difference does it make? neil: you, you think that comes back to haunt her? >> i do. when she ran against barack obama, we know we couldn't trust her when she did get the phone call during the benghazi thing, and she was part of the
overall story. the rumors are she disagreed with the language used at the state department. what did she do as state senator? what did she do when she was married to bill clinton and ran the health care plan. >> i know where you're coming from. ashley, regardless whether you think she did a good job, i'm seeing from money types who obviously are looking at alternatives and more than a few candidates willing to make the so-called suicidal run of their own thinking that they might be able to topple a giant. and if memory service me right, it happened before in the name of her husband? >> that's a valid point. i didn't think of that. if you look at it, neil, i completely agree with you. she may not be the presumptive nominee we think she is. hillary clinton, for all of her faults. a lot of people, young people,
are looking at this more closely. when you talk about the money e piece of it to also look at here, too. she does have a lot of support on wall street, and that's why she's been hit so many times and you look at warren who consistently says she's not cronies with wall street and with students and against student loan debt, and then you see clinton backpeddling and going to college campuses where she's charging $275,000 for a speech and empathizes with poor, broke college students. it doesn't work that way when a university is pay be 275-k for each speech she gives. neil: democrats don't have a problem with that. i hear you, valid points all. >> i agree in the sense i don't think she's strong from either side. the party has gotten into the inequality thing, it's not going away. the capitol book. neil: they're dividing themselves. >> if you want to go moderate,
centrist, the clinton home base where the banks back you, mike bloomberg might come. in you know hillary clinton was freaking out when that happened. that's demand from the center. he doesn't need to raise money. she'll get money from banks, that's a negative because clintons were easy on banks in the 90s. neil: democrats, larry, the bottom line is that democrats don't have a problem with wealth. the guys of fdr and john kerry don't have problems with republicans, they're wealthy. what do you think? >> you've got a bunch of yes-men on the panel. you need more people like me, neil. >> i can say a lot of bad things about both parties. what she doesn't have is what bill clinton and barack obama did have as candidates, that was charm. that was the ability to motivate the base. i don't think hillary clinton has. that i don't think she's the candidate. if she is, i don't think she's
going to win. neil: well, everyone -- >> new hampshire. neil: everyone thought the republican party, the tea party and mainstreamers, i think it's far wider gap right now on democrats. but you know, larry, the expert, i play one on tv. when we come back, when we come back, think of this, 701 people have been killed in aviation disasters this year alone. you can understand why people are very reluctant to fly, but what about the next attack? what if i said it had nothing to do with a plane? nothing to do with activity abroad. it had everything to do to buy a car.
what would help is simply being able to recognize a fair price. that's never really been possible. but along comes a radically new way to buy a car called truecar. now it is. truecar has pricing data on every make and model, so all you have to do is search for the car you want... there it is. now you're an expert in less than a minute. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar.
the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. with the top speedou compare of comcast the top speed of business dsl from the internet... phone company well, there's really no comparison. why pay more for less? call today for a low price on speeds up to 150mbps. and find out more about our two-year price guarantee. comcast business. built for business. . neil: what if i told you the next terror threat, even though it's very much on everyone's
minds, not be in the skies, it could be as close as the atm. how would you like to go to your bank tomorrow morning, try to withdraw cash and your account is zeroed out and look at 401(k), there is no money there, and look at your brokerage account or any other account. nothing there. a lead justice department official is warning just that. >> we're in a pre, in some respects, 9/11 moment with cyber. it's clear that the terrorists want to use cyberenabled means to cause the maximum amount of destruction as they can to our infrastructure. neil: retired u.s. navy captain says that threat is real, and your bank account could be vulnerable. explain, captain. >> neil, we've always had people getting better systems and challenging our internal security systems. cyberwarfare is a real issue not just in the military but financial institutions and anybody that operates a server.
neil: when we see what happens at target and nordstroms, banks and military installations, whose computers were hacked, do you think that was a preview to coming attractions, a practice run, what? >> it's not just a practice run, we have characters, organized crime and rogue nations constantly probing our systems. internal or i.t. colleges are training military, protecting your information, my information and the stuff we transfer freely through the internet. neil: what's the biggest fear? wake up tomorrow morning and get on bank and everyone sees the same thing? >> that's one of them. hacking into vfa computers that control flights throughout the oceans. neil: our grid. >> electrical grid. everything is on a server and the people are getting more and more sophisticated with their system. constantly protection us, a real issue we're working not just about the military but the
agencies to track the bad characters. neil: i have a friend of mine that's a geek, that might surprise you. he was saying bill, be careful of the services that offer cloud storage for all your stuff, what if the cloud goes away or disappears? >> if the cloud goes away or controlled by a bad element. have you given everything you have to that invisible server that's not in your control. it's a very big concern. neil: the fear is they can go ahead and set up a virus on the computer through the e-mails or sites you go through, it is a lead to start screwing around with the cloud. >> when you talk about somebody wiping out a server that can get into the financial institutions, that's a real threat, we assume apple or computer off the line that everything in there is clear, it's not. people can get inside your systems. neil: and apple used to be above all these, you know, virus attacks, now it's just as
prey. >> constantly in the military and the federal agencies are monitoring and trying to protect. neil: what do you do? >> you want to make sure you have fire walls. good companies that set up fire walls that you have the initial protection. neil: would you as my geeky friend said, send stuff to the cloud. >> only music. neil: there go my beatle songs. captain, thank you very much. >> it's a real concern, neil. neil: a concern is the way companies are treated and now trying to shop jobs overseas, is the president's rage at them a fair and balanced rage? i don't remember him mentioning apple. 100 million plus new iphones manufactured in china, and that company, maybe because it's close to the white house, gets a pass. does that pass with you? after this.
. neil: all right, sometime when everyone is pointing the finger at you, it can help deflect criticism if you point the finger at somebody else. the president is targeting companies taking advantage of loopholes to escape paying taxes here. in the long tirade against the companies, he did leave a few prominent offenders out, namely apple. of course there is planning to make 100 million of the bigger iphones, the 4.7" and 5.5" that are all going to be the rage and all being made largely in china and other points far east. so what does that mean and does that double standard mean that this administration is being very selective with its rates. the former bush 43 top official jason cable row on this double standard. what do you make of, this
jason? >> are you suggesting crony capitalism is alive and well in this white house? google, as well as apple have been doing -- have been engaged in the practice for years, there's nothing new about this occurring. neil: i have no problem with it. i have no problem with it. i'm not saying i'm against americans getting jobs. but seek your fortune throughout the world and opportunities and our kids benefit from. that the company thrives as a result. i'm saying if you're going to rip walgreen's a new one, you might as well go after a far bigger practitioner, namely, in this case, apple. and i'm an apple shareholder. >> yeah, and as am i, and i'm an apple product user. the question here is we shouldn't be vilifying the companies, any of them for doing the practice which is perfectly legal. they're forced to do it by the anti-competitive nature of our tax code. and when we have the highest
corporate tax code in the entire world, the developed world, i should say, it would be natural for these companies to try to find a way to find some relief. we have right now more than $2 trillion parked offshore by american companies who don't want to repatriate that money because of the tax code. i remember going back to 2006, a vigorous debate driven by corporations like microsoft that we needed to reform our tax code so the dolrs come back to the u.s., be invested in our markets, expand our businesses and create new jobs, which would have been a more effective antidote to the recession than the so-called stimulus that the president was advocating. big government solutions instead of capital investment. there are a lot of problems with tax code and should be examining why the companies are trying get out of here. neil: why are they taking advantage of the loopholes? jim, on that point, they woon
be doing this if they found this a financially conducive place to do business. it's not. the cutting rates, the nonsense that makes them look abroad. >> so typical of washington to attack a symptom of their own creation. we have the most punitive sadistic tax code in the world. you have to hire tons of lawyers to figure it out and the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world as the previous guest was saying. neil: the president counters that, no one pays the top rate, the advertised rate. >> here's the problem with that. crony capitalism, the big companies are the benefactors that allow them not to pay the tax rate. small businesses don't benefit near as much as the big businesses do, like the federal reserve policy helps big banks. neil: doesn't that defeat the arguments, jonas, you have to take care of the big guys or the little guys get stuck?
>> it is not a strong argument for the current president. they are under no obligation to be patriots. they are under obligation to pay as little taxes as possible. they pick the companies consumers and voters don't like. people don't like going to the gas station, they like google and apple. google and apple pay less taxes and make more stuff in china than your own company does, doesn't mean they're going to start slamming them. to do something requires other governments which we're not going to be able to pull off and do something complicated. lowering means countries go 2% lower. neil: i do think that what looks stupid to me here is that if you really want to create more jobs, mr. president, you are really ticking off the people who do the hiring, and you keep doing it, between obamacare and new rules and regulations, between their overall higher tax rates and overall regulations, demanding
that many hike the minimum wage dramatically and now this, it doesn't stop. >> you hit the nail right on the head, neil, and the thing is red tape continues to grow in washington, and you see businesses, corporations, small businesses struggling under it. that needs to be made here. while he is coming out and attacking large corporations like he did with mitt romney for offshore accounts and everything else. he's not attacking apple which is what you are pointing out. make the patriotic argument that jonas made that the president used by saying the companies evading u.s. taxes are not patriotic. what about apple? i have my iphone right here. but what i'm trying to say, though, is how patriotic is it to send, for iphones to be made in china? is that patriotic if it's not made in the usa. if you want to make that claim, you have to see two sides to
it. i love apple products, ipad, iphone, ipod, everything. neil: it isn't conducive. we're going to take a quick break and come back on other issues, and quickly on this note, you can be patriotic, but if you're out of business, it doesn't matter. think about that. and yankee-doodle dandy in the world, it doesn't help the thousand of workers on the butts in the street. just a thought. some say this image sealed the deal for president obama's second term, but now as chris christie looking to help another democrat get a second term. the christie-cuomo controversy further hurting the
governor right now. telling the guy is a lost cause when you are the head of the republican governor's association, rick perry is jumping to the defense of resterino. he glees is outrageous says that christie's job as head of the republican governor's association is to back every republican. a big no-no. right, carl? what do you think of this? >> what's up with this guy, neil? where does he get this stuff from? here he is political career circle in the drain and stumbling and fumbling trying to make andrew cuomo more desirable to new yorkers. he's helping rob resterino a lot. the news he's sending rob's way is encouraging for rob. when you see a man who's had his failures, hugging the president two weeks before the
election and off with his bridgegate nonsense, playing games and having cuomo cover up for him, and all that stuff adds up to a guy who's got serious problems at this point. neil: how serious? i know among the people -- >> rick perry -- neil: i know, carl, you follow the people close, you are familiar with it. people outside say we don't care who he backs. we might be honest to say he's down 35, 40%. with scandals around the cuomo administration, i think you could be very, very right that he's being pennywise and bound foolish. do you think americans outside the new jersey, new york, connecticut area care? >> wait a minute. he's not only the governor of new jersey. he's also the chairman of the republican conference in the republican party. neil: right, right. >> he's the chairman. and here he is making unnecessary remarks.
if you don't have something to say, you shouldn't be talking at all. my mom said. that's his problem now. neil: critics say the bridgegate problem, he and cuomo worked that one out. they are friends. it's the same reason why barack obama didn't campaign for the democratic challenger in new jersey last year. that it's like a polite understanding, we won't tread on each other. >> he made a big mistake shutting down a few lanes on the george washington bridge. neil: no, no, no, careful, there's no proof he did. that no proof he did that. you think this is going to come back to haunt him? >> yeah, yeah. neil: okay. >> absolutely. yeah. when that young lady he discharged comes back, he's going to have problems. neil: all right. who is your candidate for president by the way, while i've got you here? >> mine? neil: yeah. >> i like senator cruz right now? neil: really? ted cruz. sorry we had a slight audio
. >> just like a good personal trainer, we want the robots to be able to guide the child toward a behavior that we desire. neil: open the pod bay door. open the pod bay door. you heard that right. the government is committing $10 million to build robots that essentially act as personal trainers for kids. for children. back with our fox all-stars. each one of them raised by robots.
ashley, so we've gone to the nanny state to the robot state. what do you think of this? >> so infuriating for so many reasons. i can't help but laugh here. how does the federal government realize because of entitlement society that they have grown through social welfare and everything else, they have created and at least produced more of a breakdown of the family. if we had parents in the homes with kids, we wouldn't need robots to train them. neil: the robots look very nice. what if my kids are misbehaving? can the robots fly legally? >> taking the place of the parents with a robot, they don't have two parents in the house through government programs. neil: they already watch what we eat, is this disturbing? >> disturbing on a lot of levels. you wonder who is teaching kids
english. neil: and english as a second language. >> such a disservice when you try to ameliorate people's feelings saying we can have a bilingual society. the reality is you're dooming the child to unfavorable jobs and unskilled jobs and not helping them in society. my concern goes beyond. that what messages are the robots telling these kids? >> indoctrination. >> how great government programs are, how great government is. neil: don't watch fox, don't watch fox. >> you guys are way overanalyzing this. are the kids going to learn english? the robots aren't going have pensions, i think you should come to it, this is better than teachers. neil: obviously, you never watched 2001, a space odyssey. >> teaching children over, whether it's language or whatever. i'm not saying you need a robot form to do that.
i'm for going in the high-tech direction in a way from teacher's unions and people that aren't good at their jobs. neil: all the robots that they feature, endangered species, did you know that. >> and government is so good. >> indoctrinate our kids just as much as teachers, though. neil: i hear you, i hear you, my wife and i can go to dinner and leave the robot to watch the little monsters. next up, now that stock is rolling with the stock appreciation earlier this day, zuckerberg made a billion bucks, is he poised to be the tech industry's new it guy. mt. rushmore and all of that. jonas? >> he deserves a few of these, neil, no question about it. i think he's a little overrated. he pulled good moves and the acquisitions are looking great because the market keeps going up and the prices are going up. i don't think he was as
important to the world of technology as bill gates or steve jobs. neil: you know what's cool about him? he started all this to get dates, that is very impressive. >> looking at this differently than me. neil: that's the way i look at life. >> it's communication, it's really not technology. facebook is a way to get people to communicate, not only here in the united states but around the world. neil: how does that distinguish him from some of the others? or can he share their platform to jonas's point. this is far different than certainly what jobs createed? >> it is. what you have is a better version of my space. had he not made certain moves correctly. neil: series of incidents. >> he didn't create any technology that really transformed people's lives from a technology standpoint. i think you look at him in a different light. in a software communications standpoint. not really as a tech genius. neil: okay, guys in the control
room. we have a facebook page, right? i obviously do not want to trash this. thank you. >> are you my friend? neil: cavuto. there you go. i'm all over this tech thing. it's going to be big people. big! ashley, where does this go, we have a lot of newly admitted billionaires and multihundred millionaires with the tech titans and stocks rising. is anything expected of them, any example you want to see out of them? >> well, i mean, if he wasn't giving money to causes i didn't agree with, i would be more apt to like him. neil: what did you get to that you don't like? he's cozying to chris christy and rand paul? >> no, he's done other things we mentioned on the show before. okay, jonas, i know you're willing to stick a knife right. in but he's been looking at education and kind of delving into things that gates has with the common core initiatives and everything, too. i don't like that.
but at the same time, zuckerberg has done a great thing with the facebook whole thing, i never got a date off one, neil. we can say that. >> do a good job like larry ellison. neil: who would be your guy, the oldtime example. if you can't be steve jobs. >> i don't want to be like look, generational. people before our generation would say our industry built railroads. i'm like operating systems and build a computer. neil: henry ford. i remember that first car. >> bill gates, don't forget him, he was prior to steve jobs. bill gates made more transformations that led to the other things. neil: you had no problem getting date in college, very different
and disasters is understandable. fear is one thing, but calmed down. by harley and if you can drive there, don't go there. and a lot of buzz over my chat with michael bloomberg defying the faa travel guides and is real. on the very next day the ban is lifted. coincidental? he thinks not. there is your proof. the white house certainly does watch your show. agreed and they would never admit it. meanwhile, professor george in california. professors must turn to a box for balanced, in-depth interviews on israel. you know you are doing something right. i am not a professor. a rather irritating individual. there is something about him that makes him seem scsi. valleys feel greasy, after viewing the last portion of this
show. are you sure you want to watch is to back anyway, sorry to have u.s. even a partial york. those comments were rather scsi. my staff advanced than just the same. washington redskins fans disagreed. they do not have a problem with the team's name. read in wyoming as a solution. i agree that they should change the name and take the offensive board washington out. cliff in baltimore, change it to maryland redskins. what is the deal with a lot of you making a big deal out of my time yesterday? add that it was splendid. what is wrong with it? lets just say the fed in ohio, none of can. what are you wearing? to unload your green tie. did you by chance did it with a 12 pack of heineken?
love you, but the time you had done his today was hired. i just saw your segment of people. nice to see you are secure enough to show the comments. my staff leaves me no choice. the only e-mails day advance. damn i love it when he likes that -- is a serious look on his face. im many things. i appreciate your drunkenness. joan on facebook. if you were not married, i would propose. you are going to have to stand in line. meanwhile, your voice is quite awful to here. has a sticky, sucky sound to it. cough, drink water, or something. i cannot stand it. a turn to another channel when i see you come on. keep turning in don't turn back.
we are done. finished. place somewhere else and stay there. is there any way you can adjust to the commercials on your show so i cancerous cells and once you and o'reilly? no, beauty or the beast, this creamer or the st. i report, you decide. although my wife and that record both the your shows you are working your way to our number one show. we truly admire your summer to abuse and imagine we harmelin meals. and then pour her again. i cannot believe you have three cable news shows, two on fox news and one non the fox business network. what qualifies you for that? did you win a hot dog eating contest? you're going to find this hard to believe.
sheer physical raw attraction. that is it, and it is killing you, is in this? by the way, our your tv shows going? you guys spending every weekday with us. right now, here is the best, lou dobbs. coming your way. lou: good evening, everybody. president obama wrapping up his meeting with the president of honduras and president of ramallah and the president of el salvador's moments ago. those three nations responsible for the tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children and their families crossing our borders this year. president ignore the reality that those three presidents have filled their own people, exporting their country's poverty to the united states and in many cases forfeiting their national futures. mr. obama without any sense of absurdity or soon use the occasion to blame house republicans for the consequences